Skip to main content
Glama

Hermoso

by io.github.hermoso-ai

Draft brand profile

draft_brand

Onboard a brand profile — from a website domain, a free-text description, or a social handle — into a {name, products, logo, …} object you can pass to plan_ad / generate. 0 credits. IMPORTANT: a domain can resolve to a DIFFERENT company than intended (e.g. bala.com is an engineering firm, not the Bala fitness brand at shopbala.com). Before spending any credits on research or renders, VERIFY the returned name (and summary) match the brand the user meant; if it looks wrong, re-draft with the correct domain or a description (pass save:false until confirmed) — this tool cannot ask the user, so the caller owns that check.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
saveNosave as the workspace’s brand (like Studio onboarding) so plan_ad/create use it automatically. Default: saves only when NO brand is saved yet; pass true to overwrite, false to never save
domainNoa website to scrape
platformNoplatform for socialHandle (instagram/tiktok/…)
descriptionNoa free-text brand description (no website)
socialHandleNoa social handle to draft from (influencers/creators) — pair with platform

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint false, etc.), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool costs 0 credits, that domain resolution can return a different company, that the tool cannot ask the user, and that the caller must verify the returned name/summary. These are non-obvious behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey. It stops short of detailing all side effects (e.g., what triggers saves) but covers the most critical risks.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and efficient. It front-loads the purpose, then the zero-credit note, then the critical IMPORTANT warning about domain resolution and verification. Every sentence earns its place, provided actionable guidance that is essential for correct usage. There is no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with five optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, input sources, and the major pitfall (domain mismatch). It hints at the output shape ({name, products, logo, …}) and advises on the save parameter usage. It does not specify precedence when multiple inputs are provided or behavior with no inputs, but these are minor gaps given the tool's complexity and the strong warning provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented (save, domain, platform, description, socialHandle). The description reinforces parameter usage (e.g., domain as a website to scrape, socialHandle paired with platform) but does not add significantly new semantics beyond the schema. The baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and this description meets it without exceeding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb 'onboard' with a resource 'brand profile' from defined input sources (domain, description, social handle) and explicitly frames the output as an object for downstream tools (plan_ad/generate). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_brand by focusing on drafting from external sources rather than direct specification.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description establishes clear usage context: when to use (drafting from a domain, description, or social handle) and a critical caveat about domain resolution (bala.com vs shopbala.com). It advises verification and re-drafting, and instructs to pass save:false until confirmed. It does not explicitly name alternatives like create_brand, but the context implies when this tool is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Hermoso toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

With 293 tools, the surface is enormous and many tools have overlapping purposes—multiple posting tools (post_to_meta, post_to_linkedin, schedule_post, etc.), multiple analytics tools per channel, and several search tools (search_meta_ads, search_instagram, search_reddit...). While each description is detailed, the volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably distinguish between similar tools without careful reading, leading to frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is largely consistent with a verb_noun pattern (post_to_*, list_*, create_*, delete_*, update_*, manage_*). There are clear families for major operations. A few outliers like 'google_business_account', 'hermoso_capabilities', and 'store_get' break the pattern, but the overwhelming majority follow a predictable structure, making navigation somewhat easier.

Tool Count1/5

293 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server, even for a comprehensive marketing platform. The calibration guide flags 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this is nearly six times that threshold. Such a large surface overwhelms context windows, increases the probability of misselection, and makes it impractical for agents to learn or use effectively.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast domain: ad creation and rendering, posting across nine+ social channels, analytics and reporting, file management (Drive/OneDrive), competitor research, brand management, and more. It appears to provide CRUD and lifecycle coverage for most resources. While there may be minor gaps given the immense scope, the overall coverage is impressively comprehensive.

Resources